Citigroup - All posts tagged Citigroup

Citigroup commodities strategists see gold prices surging as much as 7% to $1,400 a troy ounce over the next month or so if Donald Trumps wins the U.S. presidential elections. If Hillary Clinton wins,prices could fall as much as 5% or more.

For years, passive funds investing in U.S. stocks have outperformed active funds. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been yanked away from money managers as investors shift to index-tracking funds. But Citigroup strategist Tobias Levkovich says “the mediocrity of passive approaches raises some serious performance questions as well.”

Three months after disclosing a new stake in Apple (AAPL), Leon Cooperman’s Omega Advisors no longer owns the tech titan.

Omega disclosed in its quarterly 13F filing, released today, that it sold the 227,000 shares of Apple it owned as of March 31. The hedge fund also abolished its stake in Gilead Sciences (GILD) and slashed its stake in Chimera Investment (CIM) by more than 40% to just under 5.6 million share, while also reducing its exposure to Facebook (FB), Dow Chemical (DOW) and American International Group (AIG)

Citigroup isn’t rushing to change its Neutral rating on Janus Capital Group (JNS) following news today that the assets in the Janus Unconstrained Bond Fund now managed by Bill Gross swelled 500% in September to $79.1 million.

Why? Analyst William Katz argues that investors may have expected a far larger influx of cash into the given the 43% run up in Janus’s share price on Sept. 26, the day of Gross surprise departure from Pimco.

Down 1% todat to close at $14.54, Janus’s share price has fallen 8.5% since its sept. 26 closing price of $15.89.

In a reports released today, Katz writes:

…we believe the market discounted between $25B-$50B in AUM moving to JNS… it is still “early days,” and we expect volumes to take time to materialize as investors await performance results under Gross. While $25B-$50B inflows may ultimately be achievable, timing will be the key from here. Given Mr. Gross assumed his PM role on 10/6, it is reasonable to assume additional AUM may follow but if the initial volley of volume is a lead indicator, large incremental flows will need to quickly arrive to support the recent rebound in the shares given: 1) recent market chop and 2) ongoing equities attrition, we believe.

So far, 2014 has been a rough year for shares of private equity firms with the likes of Blackstone Group (BX), Carlyle Group (CG) and Apollo Global Management (APO) lagging the broader stock market.

In fact, shares are Carlyle and Apollo have fallen 14% and 27% respectively since the start of the year, compared to a 7% rise by the S&P 500 index.

Why? Investors fear that a mix of higher interest rates and high multiple private equity deals amid a booming stock market will temper the group’s ability to drive competitive IRRs. But Citigroup analyst William Katz contends that alternative asset managers are hardly “one trick ponies.” The industry is far more diverse now compared to past years and deal dynamics are far more sophisticated. Also, he added, the sector has put far less capital to work in private equity compared to past cycle, which should help “protect” deal IRRs.

In fact, Katz argues in a 23-page note published today, that the group seems “quite oversold.” He writes:

The Group at large screens quite inexpensively. However, given limited investor appetite, we continue to overlay liquidity and catalysts around our Buy ratings. BX, KKR and OZM remain our favored names – though lack of follow through by OZM on performance over the next couple of months could turn shares into “show me stock” deep into 2015. In turn, the recent pull backs in APO and CG clearly improve risk/rewards, in our view.

When it comes to banging the table about Bitcoin, fans of the virtual currency are not shy. In their minds, it’s only a matter of time before it becomes widely accepted as a means of payment and the wild price swings are simple growing pains.

Not so, says Steve Englander, a currency specialist at Citigroup, who argues that mining costs make “volatility inevitable.”

Mining costs? That’s industry lingo for the piles of cash being invested in the sophisticated technology required to create Bitcoin.

In the mining process, bitcoin enthusiasts essentially generate the currency by solving complicated math problems with their computers. The growing popularity and rising prices of bitcoin are fuelling a race among companies and people to build ever-more-powerful computers to jump into the market.

Today, Bitcoin trades at $513, up 1.9%compared to yesterday.

Skepticism of the virtual currency remains as few consumers use it and retailers that do accept it often shift immediately into fiat currency. And then there’s the mining costs.

In a note released today, Englander writes:

Bitcoin mining has evolved from cottage industry to heavy industry over the last couple of years and mining equipment has become very expensive. This may add acute instability to Bitcoin price dynamics because of an imbalance between supply and demand…If miners pay out a lot for their equipment, the more the initial outlay, the bigger the incentive to sell quickly any Bitcoin that they mine into the market in order to recoup their investment. So we have daily transactions volume of 60-100k in recent months, with volumes higher in periods of falling bitcoin prices. Many and possibly a majority of these transactions are shuffling Bitcoin between wallets. About 3.5k Bitcoin are mined daily. If the miners are a steady source of supply and there is no increase in final demand we have this overhang of Bitcoin being sold into the market. In consequence we have downward price pressures. This may change if there is some pickup in demand for Bitcoin, but for now we have miners looking to sell and not much of anyone looking to buy. The market structure I am describing inherently generates extreme volatility. Bitcoin advocates often describe volatility as a growing pain but in fact the cost structure of Bitcoin mining may make this volatility inevitable.

Goldman Sachs (GS) set the bar high yesterday for investment banks reporting fourth quarter earnings. Not everyone can hurtle it.

Shares of Banc of American-Merrill Lynch (BAC) fell 1.3% to $11.63 before the opening bell, while shares of Citigroup (C) fell tumbled roughly 3% to $41.22 as investors reacted to quarterly financial results released Thursday morning.

Banc of America’s net profits plunged 63% as revenue tumbled and the firm was weighed down by big charges related to a dispute with Fannie Mae (FNMA) and a foreclosure settlement. Still, Chief Executive Brian Moynihan said Thursday that the bank has begun 2013 “strong and well positioned for further growth,” highlighting “double-digit growth since last year in mortgage production, commercial lending, and Global Markets revenue.”

Meanwhile, Citigroup’s fourth-quarter profit rose more than 25%, even as the bank continued to get stung by mortgage ills lingering from the financial crisis. Still, profits and revenue missed the Street’s expectations.

Why own a company that specializes in gold and silver when you can have a diversified miner like Rio Tinto (RIO) on the cheap? Especially after precious metals’ decade-long price upswing.

That’s the argument being made by Citigroup’s (C) Jon H. Bergtheil in a note this morning. Bergtheil repeats his cautious thesis on gold and silver miners, a week after recommending that investors sell their precious-metals stocks and move into industrial miners. The thesis, sure to displease central-bank distrusting owners of the Market Vectors Gold Miners ETF (GDX), down about 12% this year, or the Global X Silver Miners (SIL), up about 7%, makes a valuation contrast worth noting.

Randgold Resources (GOLD) trades at what Bergtheil says is a 15.2 multiple of 2013 consensus earnings and a 12.1 multiple for 2014. Rio, battered by global-growth worries and other factors, trades at what he says is 7.6 and 7.1, respectively.

It’s an issue utterly aside from the longstanding problem of gold- and silver mining stock indexes’ failure to rise at the rate of metal prices. Of course, you needn’t view the issue as “either or.” Buying a precious metals fund like the GDX versus a tracker of industrial mining, like the SPDR S&P Metals and Mining ETF (XME) or the iShares MSCI Global Select Metals & Mining Producers Fund (PICK), are two very different investments.

About Focus on Funds

As exchange-traded funds and other investing vehicles have ballooned in number, the task of figuring out what works well and what doesn’t has only gotten harder. Barrons.com’s Focus on Funds looks under the hood of ETFs, mutual funds and hedge funds for overlooked values, actionable ideas and the latest pitfalls for fund investors.